|
|
|
Provincial Maladministration
|
 |
|
 |
Provincial Misconduct
In Roman law there was no there grounds for prosecuting someone for
killing non-Romans and there was no technical limit on the exactions
that a magistrate could make on the basis of his imperium.
Theoretically, then, a magistrate with imperium could literally do
whatever he pleased. The Romans gradually came to find that they had to
do something to curb the behavior of their magistrates. This proved
hard to carry out in practice.
Already in the 190s Cato had lambasted a magistrate for executing ten
important local men in a community of Italian. The Romans never dealt
directly with this kind of matter, since it would be difficult to
distinguish between "proper" executions carried out in the course of a
magistrate's duties and executions that were "unjustified." What they
did do was to attempt to stamp out provincial extortion, something that
could result in an abusive use of imperium. Furthermore, such would
serve to prevent immoral men from seizing the funds to advance their
careers in Rome through electoral bribery.
We know of several instances of provincial misadministration from the
late 170s and we can see both experimental measures implemented in an
effort to curb this activity and the general inability of the
senatorial oligarchy to curb the activities of its members in the
magistracies.
Misdeeds of M. Popillius Laenas
In 173 the consul M. Popillius Laenas was waging war in Liguria and
treacherously attacked the Statellates after they had entrusted
themselves to the good faith of the Roman People. After they
capitulated and were disarmed, he destroyed their town and sold them as
slaves and their property. The next year the senate was strongly in
favor of securing the release of the captives, but Laenas' brother
Publius was now consul and prevented any action. An impasse was reached
when Publius and the other consul tried to protect Marcus and the
senate refused to discuss an matters until the topic of debating the
enslavement of the Statellates was put before the house. Eventually,
two tribunes had a law passed setting up a court to try whoever was
responsible for enslaving the Statellates (i.e. M. Laenas) if they were
not freed by a given date. He weasled out of the trial by a
technicality (and the conivance of the magistrate presiding over the
court), but the move represents the first attempt to call magistrates
to account for misdeeds in the provinces. It also reflects the
difficulties of bringing a magistrate to justice in a judicial system
controlled by his peers. Laenas, escaping punishment himself, kept many
as slaves, and the rest were deported north of the Po River.
Civil Restitution for Theft in Spain
In 171 Spanish tribes came to complain about the extortion of certain
ex-governors. A special senatorial commission was set up to determine
what should be restored. The was basically an attempt to set up a
procedure based on civil law to assure the return of stolen property.
Two ex-praetors went into voluntary exile to avoid conviction. Though
the provincials did not get much out of the procedure, the careers of
two Roman magistrates were ruined because of their actions in the
provinces. On the other hand, it seems that to some extent the two
praetors convicted were sacrifices made to calm public dissatisfaction
in Rome. At any rate, the Spaniards had been assigned patrons by the
senate, who prevented them from bringing accusations against more
prominent ex-magistrates. The convicted praetors were "new men," and
the oligarchy allowed them to be convicted in order to prevent harm to
more important men.
Greece
The first magistrates sent to Greece at the start of the Third
Macedonian War seemed more intent on lining their own pockets through
plundering Greek towns (even Roman allies) than on prosecuting the war
against Perses. If the war had gone successfully, this activities would
probably have been passed over, but since the plundering was combined
with military incompetence, public outrage resulted in Rome. Charges
against Roman praetors in Chalcis came to trial. In 170 an attempt by
the senate to deal with the case of accusations against the ex-praetor
C. Lucretius Gallus caused a tribune of the plebs to prosecute the man
before the People. His condemnation by all 35 tribes indicates the
extent of popular discontent. Lucretius Gallus was fined a million
asses, but Hortensius went on to exploit and abuse Abdera in Thrace the
next year and was again reprimanded by the senate and forced to
liberate the free citizens he had enslaved.
Galba's Outrage in Spain
Clearly, there were ad hoc attempts being made in Rome to deal with
provincial misadminstration. The first attempt at a permanent solution
arose as a result of the abuses of Ser. Sulpicius Galba.
In 150 Galba had slaughtered 8,000 Lusitani after they had surrendered
to the good faith of the Roman People, and he sold the rest into
slavery. The next year (149) an effort was made to set up a special
court to try him, as had been done in the case of Laenas in 172. Cato
spoke vigorously in favor of the measure, but Galba thwarted it by
invoking the pity of the Roman People at the fate of his children and
ward. This sufficed to prevent the People from setting up the court in
the first place. Thus, no trial ensued.
As a consequence, a tribune (L. Calpurnis Piso) passed a law
establishing a permanent court at which provincials could seek the
restitution of stolen property. Now the pity of the Roman People could
not be used to avoid trial. The court had a jury of senators and
provided for simple restitution (no damages) and functioned under the
procedure of Roman civil law.
As it turned out, the senators were not very keen on convicting fellow
senators, and the tribune C. Sempronius Gracchus was to bring about a
definite increase in the courts procedure in 123. But already the
Romans were trying to set up permanent institutions to control their
provincial governors. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
